i have thought about millionaires using dating sites..........man, why would he/they want to, they have no need to. All they would have to do is wave they platinum amex card or a fat wallet and they'd be set for the night. Maybe they come on here for entertainment value or even boredom, to see what the rest of the world is doing in order to find a life partner.

HurricaneHottie , don't you think you would have better luck on a swingers site? Swingers can be millionaires.

Great input above, wwwww123. I agreeeee.

As for a swingers site being a better deal, it's not. I don't really fit there. Although my husband and I consider ourselves poly, we do not swing or swap.

For those that don't understand the world of polyamory, I will cite the definition that we agree with and practice from Dictionary .LaborLawTalk .com:

start quote - "Polyamory is a neologism which denotes the concept of "multiple loves". Like 'television', it is a hybrid word: 'poly' is Greek for 'many' and 'amor' is Latin for 'love'. It has been independently coined by several people; one of these people was Morning Glory Zell Ravenheart, who used the term 'polyamorous relationship' in her article entitled A Bouquet of Lovers in 1990. Jennifer Wesp created the Usenet newsgroup alt.polyamory in 1992. However, the term has been reported in occasional use since the 1960s.

The ideal of polyamory is being able to have honest romantic relationships with multiple partners at once. Persons in such relationships define themselves as polyamorous, often abbreviated to 'poly'. " - end quote

This definition continues with:

start quote - "Forms of polyamory

Forms of polyamory include:

* Polyfidelity, which involves multiple romantic relationships with sexual contact restricted to specific partners in a group
* Sub-relationships, which distinguish between "primary" and "secondary" relationships (e.g. most open marriages)
* Polygamy (polygyny and polyandry), in which one person marries several spouses (who may or may not be married to or have a romantic relationship with one another)
* Group relationships and group marriage, in which all consider themselves equally associated to one another, popularized to some extent by Robert Heinlein in novels such as Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and also by author Robert Rimmer
* Relationship webs among a number of people who are in favour of and agree on "Friendship without Barriers"

Some people in sexually exclusive relationships may still self-describe as polyamorous, if they have significant emotional ties to more than one other person.

Values of polyamory

Unlike the general case of swinging, polyamorous relationships generally involve an emotional bond, though the distinctions made between swinging and polyamory are a topic open to debate and interpretation. Many people in both the swinging and polyamory communities see both practices as part of a continuum of open intimacy and sexuality.

Note that the values discussed here are ideals. As with any ideals, their adherents sometimes fall short of the mark - but major breaches of a polyamorous relationship's ideals are taken as seriously as such breaches would be in any other relationship.

Honesty and respect

Most monogamists define fidelity as committing to only one partner (at a time), and having no other sexual partners during such commitment; most polyamorists define fidelity as being truthful and forthcoming with their partners and keeping the commitments they have made to them.

Most polyamorists emphasize respect for all partners. Withholding information - even a "Don't ask, don't tell" agreement - is frowned upon, because it implies that partners do not trust one another to handle the truth. A partner's partners should be accepted rather than merely tolerated." - end quote

We practice polyfidelity with sub-relationships. We are open to group marriage and relationship webs. But, we do not and will not practice polygamy. We see each other's partners' in terms of the benefit to our primary partner's life rather than the threat to our own.

There is much more detail available on polyamory at that site, but those who may want such detail can sleuth it out on their own, if they are so inclined. If they do, hopefully they will enjoy the journey into understanding a life choice that is misunderstood by many :)

Flamingo052 write: First, it's not difficult these days to document a net worth of a million dollars.

Second, if you're really all that wealthy, why in the world would you look online??? There are plenty of people who offer dating services for the wealthy where people are screened before they're introduced.

Perhaps we shouldn't take the name of this site quite so literally.

Net worth does not equil a decent lifestyle. A empty lot a few miles south of San Fransisco would be worth a million but you would have to sleep in your car. I know people worth many millions of dollars but its all in property, not cash, and they are cash poor.

You need to understand more about money, investments, etc.

************************

HurricaneHottie , don't you think you would have better luck on a swingers site? Swingers can be millionaires.

Well, I have certainly met some fine guys here. At least two have become v. close friends and are genuinely wealthy but very low profile. They are too savvy and smart to be sugar daddies and do not need to be that to attract the sort of women that they like.
Sugar daddies are the ones who can't attract the women of their choice and therefore have to provide the 'bait' .
So do you seriously want to be 'sugar-daddies' arm candy?

Flamingo052 write: First, it's not difficult these days to document a net worth of a million dollars.

Second, if you're really all that wealthy, why in the world would you look online??? There are plenty of people who offer dating services for the wealthy where people are screened before they're introduced.

Perhaps we shouldn't take the name of this site quite so literally.

Those are all good points.

Perhaps it is a time factor. I know a few well-off gents that just don't have the time for personal dating services. But, they do have time to pop online, get a profile up, and check messages from time to time... hoping for the best.

It's the same for me. I know that I have no time to sign up with a personal service that will meet me to take time to screen me for a millionaire+, let alone to then meet someone they "arrange" for me to meet in person. I want to have the opportunity to chat or talk on the phone, first. That's why I take advantage of online services like MM.

It may not be the best solution, and it may not provide the screening effectiveness... but it certainly COULD if the right systems are in place.

sweendogr write: I remember a few years back MM would require sometype of financial proof to validate millionaires and certify them as such. I wish they would go back to that format,it would eliminate many of these so-called millionaires,doctors,attorneys,pyschothterapists,poets,ect. I for one would be certified, I only know of a few men on here that would be also, no females.

I agree with you. I'd like to see it go one step further, somehow, and validate whether an individual is looking for their dream mate for longterm monogamy, OR if they are truly looking to be someone's SugarDaddy with no strings, married or not.

Sadly, profiles are very misleading this way. I have been contacted by many gentlemen who are looking for their "one true love" to settle down with in earnest. I hate disappointing them, but as my profile states, that's not me.

I can be "one of" but not "the one".

The other thing is that if fun and no strings sexy times and financial benefits is bottom line what folks want... I'd love to see more state that straight up and not be misleading.

I remember a few years back MM would require sometype of financial proof to validate millionaires and certify them as such. I wish they would go back to that format,it would eliminate many of these so-called millionaires,doctors,attorneys,pyschothterapists,poets,ect. I for one would be certified, I only know of a few men on here that would be also, no females.